Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
The point is that they can find ways to justify prices higher than they could if it was just a TV with a good picture. The prices of TVs are now dropping to the point that they are approaching the cost of the raw materials and manufacturing. This is driving their profit margins down to nil. They are looking for any--empty--excuse they can find to keep that price and profit margin up.
You sound like the guy that says, "I don't want my cellphone to play music. I don't want to surf the web on it or write emails on it. I just want it to do voice calls, and I want it to do them well."
Those little extras that you don't like are bullet points on Best Buy tags, though. Imagine you're a regular person who doesn't know the difference between LCD and plasma. All you know, when shopping for a TV, is which screen is bigger, which one looks brighter (and therefore better), and how much they cost. For you, all there is to differentiate the screens in front of you is the little tag on each screen.
It boils down to how many bullet points are on the list, and after exhausting your brain with the whole electronics store experience, you'll narrow it down to three choices - and one of them has "Yahoo widgets." You don't know what that means, but it seems like something cool, and you've heard of Yahoo.
It doesn't matter so much to the brand that sells the TV whether or not you use it after you bring it home, but they know that you at least subconsciously added some value to that particular TV, and they got the sale.
@Gundem: I purchased my previous TV shortly after getting a part-time job while in college. Had the DTV switchover not occured, it'd still be my TV. It's lasted over a decade and it still works fine.
In a decade, Flickr will be "MShoo Photos Live PLUS!" all the API's for accessing it the way your TV would will have been changed. Last.FM will have been shuttered, with twelve new companies providing similar, better, or more interesting services in that area. H.264 will be refered to as the codec only Old People in Korea use.
In other words, unless you consider your TV disposable (and if you do, there is only a few things wrong with that) all these wizbang features are going to be either useless or completely outdated compared to anything a box you could buy for one tenth the orginal price of your TV can do for you.
When TV's break the price point where buying a new one every year is as common as some people do with commodity computers, adding this sort of content directly to the firmware (and inflating the price) seems reasonable. Till then, it's just thowing money away.
@Gundem: I don't think you understood his point. The issue is not whether or not having this content is good or bad. His point is that the content is readily available from existing technology which can be replaced more easily than an expensive TV.
LastFM has been around for seven years. Flickr has been around five years. Twitter has been around for three years. Are you going to tell me you know what sites and services you'll be using five years from now?
Digital content and functionality move quickly, quick enough that intelligent consumers want to avoid being tethered to outdated content by a piece of equipment that costs several thousand dollars to replace. Never mind paying more for that content knowing it will likely die off long before the TV does.
This is the digital equivalent of TVs with built in VHS players. The difference is that here the technology that is going to make the additional content obsolete is moving much, much faster. Take it from someone in NBC Universal's Technology Growth Center . . .
@Gundem: The issue then is that most people feel a TV shouldn't have an operating system that does anything more than turn input into output.
An open OS with an app market isn't going to work very well for several reasons.
The biggest issue is simply the hardware. There's a reason Apple's iMac style never caught on with other companies. Most people, normal people, don't want to buy a new monitor when they need to upgrade their computer. Same principle applies here. Again, the difference is that the stakes are higher since the TV costs thousands of dollars.
Additionally, a huge percentage of Americans are 2-screen consumers. This means that they use a computer while watching TV.
There is a rapidly growing market for 2-screen apps which supplement video content with additional information on a second screen (Check out FoxPop some time. I think you'll like it).
Is everyone going to have a computer with them when they watch TV? Certainly not, but the people who would be interested in widgets almost certainly will. I assert that there is nothing you could integrate into a TV that couldn't be done better on a laptop (again, upgradeable) unless it was incredibly content specific.
And if that's the case we have 2-screen apps.
Oh, and 1-screen apps/iTV. Thanks to the new EBIF standards that are evolving as part of the Open Cable initiative digital TV is finally going to be a reality in the US (and only a decade behind schedule!) meaning that a lot of things that could be content specific widgets will be integrated into the broadcast and manipulated through your cable box.
@Gundem: A better question is "Why not monitors?" and the answer is easy. You don't want to buy a new monitor every time you have to upgrade your computer.
Phones get upgraded frequently, on average once every two years. Computers have a similar obsolescence period.
Any content processing hardware will be upgraded or replaced and needs to have a price point that reflects this.
This is not the case with TVs. TVs cost thousands because while the content processing game is rapidly evolving, the content displaying game is not. That's the main reason people are comfortable spending so much on televisions, they know the device will be used for a long period of time.
With that in mind, the idea of paying more for a TV in order to have it do things I won't want it to do for the majority of it's service life is ridiculous.
On a footnote, I wonder what Apple's forthcoming TV will be like? Or do we wait until the Tablet is released before we start speculating about their TV?
@frigg: Apple's forthcoming tv? I haven't heard about it, but I'll give you the rundown on it (no "speculating" here!):
-Unibody, made from a single piece of Aluminum
-LED lit LCD
-Includes Apple TV, and only apple TV; no auxiliary inputs or outputs except for the apple proprietary adapter
-Want HDMI? That converter is $150.
-Remote only has "Power" and "Volume" functions- and no buttons, only gestures. Buttons are so archaic.
-Pricing starts at $3,500 for the 27" set, up to $18,500 for the 60 in LCD
-It will change your life, and in the words of Steve Jobs, it's "awesome."
I'm totally with you. I want the best quality, with several inputs, no speakers, no extra-large bezel designed to make the TV look bigger than it really is. Great post. I love how Giz is putting sensible editorials out like this these days.
I think the features are fine as long as it doesn't affect the price significantly. I mean, you can just turn them off and they might be a nice thing to have for some people. I imagine that in the near future a TV will be just like a PC where you can choose to install apps/widgets or not but still have wireless access etc. And further in the future, maybe there will be one main computer in the house which will talk to and/or control all electronics in your house
(i.e. TVs, Bluray players, thermostats, washing machines, dishwashers etc.) Eventually everything will be interconnected and you'll be able to monitor your energy usage and schedule when to use your appliances.
Wow, did I go on a tangent, what were we talking about?
Here's a request that might not be so popular: Stop making A/V equipment that forces me to use it in one specific way.
I have a Samsung TV and a Samsung Blu-Ray disc player, and an Onkyo receiver. The BD player passes through the Onkyo on its way to the TV.
Now, the BD player also plays CDs, which I would (of course) want to hear via the Onkyo. However because they are both Samsung, whenever I turn on the BD player the TV instantly comes on. If I turn the TV off, the BD player goes off.
Argh. I can't listen to a CD without the TV on, unless I unplug the TV. If there's a setting to change this, I couldn't find it.
@lostarchitect: Look for settings relating to Anynet+ (Samsung's name for HDMI-CEC). You should be able to turn it off I would think. I know my LG TV lets me turn off its implementation of HDMI-CEC.
@lostarchitect: There is an option to turn this off thankfully. On most Samsung TV's it's called Anynet+, if you go into the main menu there should be a page for that, and you can disable it.
If that doesn't fix it, if your Onkyo has a setting called HDMI Control, turn that off.
@Woz: Granted that I did not attend one of the demo's, and that my statement's are subjective; I stand by them.
I have seen several movies in 3D in recent months. In all cases I found it distracting and gimmicky. The only reason I saw them, was my inattention at the box office, and I didn't realize they were 3D.
I recently took a survey about a movie I very much want to see, in which one question was "Does knowing that this movie will be released in 3D make you want to:
A)Absolutely see it
B)Maybe see it
3)Don't care / doesn't affect decision
4)Maybe not to see it
5)Definitely not see it.
My answer was emphatically #5. I definitely do not want to see that movie, or any other, in 3D.
@Geisrud: The technology is considerbly better in what Panasonic is doing which would make it much improved over what your currently seeing in theaters. It was no contest, granted it was a controlled environment with source material designed specifically for the demo.
@Geisrud: I like the new 3D technology. It is a huge step from the red/blue technology and I agree that it is at times distracting from the story, but I see it as a step toward perfecting the art. I look forward to a more realistic form of 3D that makes you feel as a part of the story and not just a spectator. What fun games will be when 3D is perfected!
@SEDAGIVE?!: For cable TV outside the U.S--sport was the driver, so it could be the same here. To that end, the NBA has done tets...and Sky in the UK is looking at 3D football and Olympics broadcasts. That *could* be what gets it past the line.
12/08/09
12/08/09
Seriously, I don't use social networking or Twitter and I'm tired of companies wasting time putting this stuff on devices that don't really need it.
12/08/09
Welcome to the Convergence Age Brian.
12/08/09
Read the last paragraph (or second to..)
12/08/09
It boils down to how many bullet points are on the list, and after exhausting your brain with the whole electronics store experience, you'll narrow it down to three choices - and one of them has "Yahoo widgets." You don't know what that means, but it seems like something cool, and you've heard of Yahoo.
It doesn't matter so much to the brand that sells the TV whether or not you use it after you bring it home, but they know that you at least subconsciously added some value to that particular TV, and they got the sale.
12/08/09
Having flicker is a great addition. Having media center is a great addition. Havening last Fm and you tube is a great addition.
I disagree with this blog.
12/08/09
In a decade, Flickr will be "MShoo Photos Live PLUS!" all the API's for accessing it the way your TV would will have been changed. Last.FM will have been shuttered, with twelve new companies providing similar, better, or more interesting services in that area. H.264 will be refered to as the codec only Old People in Korea use.
In other words, unless you consider your TV disposable (and if you do, there is only a few things wrong with that) all these wizbang features are going to be either useless or completely outdated compared to anything a box you could buy for one tenth the orginal price of your TV can do for you.
When TV's break the price point where buying a new one every year is as common as some people do with commodity computers, adding this sort of content directly to the firmware (and inflating the price) seems reasonable. Till then, it's just thowing money away.
12/08/09
LastFM has been around for seven years. Flickr has been around five years. Twitter has been around for three years. Are you going to tell me you know what sites and services you'll be using five years from now?
Digital content and functionality move quickly, quick enough that intelligent consumers want to avoid being tethered to outdated content by a piece of equipment that costs several thousand dollars to replace. Never mind paying more for that content knowing it will likely die off long before the TV does.
This is the digital equivalent of TVs with built in VHS players. The difference is that here the technology that is going to make the additional content obsolete is moving much, much faster. Take it from someone in NBC Universal's Technology Growth Center . . .
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
If a TV comes with widgets and add-ons there should be room for upgrading and enhancement.
Phones, computers, MP3 players do it. Why not TVs?
12/08/09
An open OS with an app market isn't going to work very well for several reasons.
The biggest issue is simply the hardware. There's a reason Apple's iMac style never caught on with other companies. Most people, normal people, don't want to buy a new monitor when they need to upgrade their computer. Same principle applies here. Again, the difference is that the stakes are higher since the TV costs thousands of dollars.
Additionally, a huge percentage of Americans are 2-screen consumers. This means that they use a computer while watching TV.
There is a rapidly growing market for 2-screen apps which supplement video content with additional information on a second screen (Check out FoxPop some time. I think you'll like it).
Is everyone going to have a computer with them when they watch TV? Certainly not, but the people who would be interested in widgets almost certainly will. I assert that there is nothing you could integrate into a TV that couldn't be done better on a laptop (again, upgradeable) unless it was incredibly content specific.
And if that's the case we have 2-screen apps.
Oh, and 1-screen apps/iTV. Thanks to the new EBIF standards that are evolving as part of the Open Cable initiative digital TV is finally going to be a reality in the US (and only a decade behind schedule!) meaning that a lot of things that could be content specific widgets will be integrated into the broadcast and manipulated through your cable box.
12/08/09
Phones get upgraded frequently, on average once every two years. Computers have a similar obsolescence period.
Any content processing hardware will be upgraded or replaced and needs to have a price point that reflects this.
This is not the case with TVs. TVs cost thousands because while the content processing game is rapidly evolving, the content displaying game is not. That's the main reason people are comfortable spending so much on televisions, they know the device will be used for a long period of time.
With that in mind, the idea of paying more for a TV in order to have it do things I won't want it to do for the majority of it's service life is ridiculous.
12/08/09
12/08/09
On a footnote, I wonder what Apple's forthcoming TV will be like? Or do we wait until the Tablet is released before we start speculating about their TV?
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
-Unibody, made from a single piece of Aluminum
-LED lit LCD
-Includes Apple TV, and only apple TV; no auxiliary inputs or outputs except for the apple proprietary adapter
-Want HDMI? That converter is $150.
-Remote only has "Power" and "Volume" functions- and no buttons, only gestures. Buttons are so archaic.
-Pricing starts at $3,500 for the 27" set, up to $18,500 for the 60 in LCD
-It will change your life, and in the words of Steve Jobs, it's "awesome."
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
If you want to get gadgets/goodies, get a damn media box (ala WDTV or something else).
12/08/09
12/08/09
(i.e. TVs, Bluray players, thermostats, washing machines, dishwashers etc.) Eventually everything will be interconnected and you'll be able to monitor your energy usage and schedule when to use your appliances.
Wow, did I go on a tangent, what were we talking about?
12/08/09
12/08/09
I have a Samsung TV and a Samsung Blu-Ray disc player, and an Onkyo receiver. The BD player passes through the Onkyo on its way to the TV.
Now, the BD player also plays CDs, which I would (of course) want to hear via the Onkyo. However because they are both Samsung, whenever I turn on the BD player the TV instantly comes on. If I turn the TV off, the BD player goes off.
Argh. I can't listen to a CD without the TV on, unless I unplug the TV. If there's a setting to change this, I couldn't find it.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
If that doesn't fix it, if your Onkyo has a setting called HDMI Control, turn that off.
12/08/09
12/08/09
Naturally it will never happen.
12/08/09
09/28/09
I sincerely hope this craze goes away soon.
09/28/09
09/28/09
I have seen several movies in 3D in recent months. In all cases I found it distracting and gimmicky. The only reason I saw them, was my inattention at the box office, and I didn't realize they were 3D.
I recently took a survey about a movie I very much want to see, in which one question was "Does knowing that this movie will be released in 3D make you want to:
A)Absolutely see it
B)Maybe see it
3)Don't care / doesn't affect decision
4)Maybe not to see it
5)Definitely not see it.
My answer was emphatically #5. I definitely do not want to see that movie, or any other, in 3D.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
(Excluding the inevitable holographic imaging)
09/28/09
09/28/09